24 May 2010

Drunk With Blood: It's one of God's favorite expressions

I titled my list of God's killings "Drunk with Blood" for a reason. I think the phrase describes the God of the Bible perfectly.

It's also one of God's favorite expressions. The phrase "drunk with blood" (or variants of it) is used five times in the Bible.

God first uses it to describe himself: his arrows are drunk with blood.

I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh. Deuteronomy 32.42

Now I know that God doesn’t mean this literally. God’s arrows don’t have mouths; they don’t drink blood and they’ve never been drunk on anything. His sword doesn’t eat flesh either. God is being metaphorical here.

The next use of "drunk with blood" is similar. God’s sword is drunk with blood, too, just like his arrows.

This is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may avenge him of his adversaries: and the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their blood. Jeremiah 46.10

But God’s sword is not just drunk with blood, it's also filled and bathed with blood in heaven. (Who knew God would have a bloody sword in heaven?)

God is angry with people every day. His sword is wet and his bow is bent. He has prepared all the instruments of death.

God is angry with the wicked every day … he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready. He hath also prepared for him the instruments of death. Psalm 7.11-13

Even his clothes are sprinkled with the blood of his victims. (I don’t know whether his clothes are really dripping with blood in heaven. I don’t even know if he wears clothes. I’m just telling you what the Bible says.)

I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment. Isaiah 63.3

But God’s sword and arrows won’t be the only things drunk with blood. God also plans to force people (before he kills them) to eat their own flesh and get drunk on their own blood.

I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine. Isaiah 49.26

I’m not sure how much of this is metaphor. God often talks about forcing people to eat other people. That part, at least, is literal. Here are a few examples.

Forcing people to eat themselves.

And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm. Isaiah 9.20

Thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. Deuteronomy 28.53

The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter, And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them. Deuteronomy 28.56-57

I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend. Jeremiah 19.9
The hands of the pitiful women have sodden their own children: they were their meat. Lamentations 4.10

The fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers. Ezekiel 5.10

So while it is true that part of God’s plan for humanity is forcing people to eat each other, he was probably just getting carried away with his own metaphor when he said they’d get drunk on their own blood.

After God kills people, he will feed their bodies to the birds and beasts until they, too, become drunk with blood.

Thus saith the Lord GOD; Speak unto every feathered fowl, and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, even a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh, and drink blood. Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth … And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken, of my sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you. Ezekiel 39.17-19

God talks a lot about feeding dead people to birds and animals. Here are some examples.

Thy carcase shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them away. Deuteronomy 28.26

The carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall fray them away. Jeremiah 7.33

Come ye, assemble all the beasts of the field, come to devour. Jeremiah 12.9

Their carcases shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth. Jeremiah 16.4

Their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth. Jeremiah 19.7

Their dead bodies shall be for meat unto the fowls of the heaven, and to the beasts of the earth. Jeremiah 34.20

I have given thee for meat to the beasts of the field and to the fowls of the heaven. Ezekiel 29.5

I will cast thee forth upon the open field, and will cause all the fowls of the heaven to remain upon thee, and I will fill the beasts of the whole earth with thee. Ezekiel 32.4

I will give thee unto the ravenous birds of every sort, and to the beasts of the field to be devoured. Ezekiel 39.4

Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God. … And all the fowls were filled with their flesh. Revelation 19.17-21

Someday believers will get into the act, too. Heck, they’re even going to get to drink the blood of God’s victims after they wash their feet in it.

The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. Psalm 58.10

God shall wound the head of his enemies … that thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same. Psalm 68.21-23

The people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion: he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain. Numbers 23.24

And believers must drink the blood of Jesus if they want to get to heaven.

Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:53-54

And finally, the great whore of Babylon will be drunk with the blood of the saints and martyrs.

I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. Revelation 17.6

51 comments:

By making his arrows, drunk with blood and his sword devouring flesh God indicates that God will destroy those who destroy. In one form or another the people who God destroys are bent upon the destruction of his purpose. As Sovereign Lord and Creator he has that right, and in fact, it may be said that he has that responsibility.

If some uninformed Christian is reading about God killing people they may very well ask themselves "Why all of the killing?" The informed student of the Bible will ask the same. The difference is that the later will try and discover the answer to the question whereas the former will become an uninformed atheist.

Upon discovering the reason behind the killing the informed Bible student comes to the conclusion that it is unfortunate that God had to kill all of these people, but at the same time is grateful that he will destroy those that destroy.

Look around you. You see those destroying? As Malachi 3:1-5 says, they are the sorcerers, adulterers, false swearers, those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not Jehovah God.

Daystar, wow...so god created everything, made the rules, and now reluctantly has to kill a bunch of people because he's pissed-off? So if one fails to properly grovel before this loving god, it's sword time?

“Look around you. You see those destroying? As Malachi 3:1-5 says, they are the sorcerers, adulterers, false swearers, those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not Jehovah God."

The widow and the fatherless too? What a heck of a guy this is. Not that he's reveling in the killing either, oh no. It doesn't sound like that at all...and false swearing and adulterers, they need the ol' sword for sure. No stiff warning. Sorcerers....I have yet to meet one. You may find that rational people don't believe in sorcery outside of Dungeons and Dragons. Just sayin'.

Again, the classic argument of the faithful- "He beats us because he loves us." I can see why "god is love."

It doesn't take an uninformed atheist to realize that regardless of rights, the god of this unholy book is a god of war. Sure, let's justify the killings of so many people through hellfire, stones, disease, filth, leprosy, and... the great flood?

Yeah. The great flood. Who wants to justify that one? 8 (or in some arguments, 11) people were all that were on the ark. The rest of the unfortunate world was drowned, including animals and insects. Apparently this was the best that god could come up with, and even after the flood, god suddenly realized, 'D'oh! Humanity is evil from youth!' If god truly was perfect and benevolent, he could have found another way. As it is, all of these killings and dumbass attacks this deity constantly has just goes to show that he's both morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Daystar, isn't a large portion of this blog describing just the opposite? In many cases, the almost twenty-five million God has been so far estimated to have killed are not the "destroyers" at all, but innocent. Those that hardly deserved to be massacred.

Steve,Yahve is only as strong as a unicorn. We can see this from the two comparsion:- unicorns do not exist. Elohim doesn't exist. A nonexistant being, anything it is, has as much power amongst the existing things as any other.- The Lord of Hosts is mythologically omnipotent. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is mythologically omnipotent. As they are both the Sole Creator of the Universe (besides The Flying Spagetthi Monster, Brahma and more), we can see their power matches.

God created the earth for man to enjoy, with the stipulation that man needed the guidance and protection of the Creator. The tree of the knowledge of what is good and what is bad represented Jehovah's sovereignty.

When man rejected that God stepped aside so man could address that issue. Can man rule the earth under the influence of Satan, who deceived Eve, or would he destroy life on Earth?

God doesn't kill people just because they piss him off and he doesn't need anyone to grovel before him.

"The widow and the fatherless too?"

Read the text again. God is against those who cheat the worker from his wages and mistreats the widow and orphan.

"...and false swearing and adulterers, they need the ol' sword for sure. No stiff warning."

There has been plenty of warning, and they do need the sword because the corruption they promote leads to a destruction of they way things should be. It spreads. It gets worse over time.

"Sorcerers....I have yet to meet one. You may find that rational people don't believe in sorcery outside of Dungeons and Dragons. Just saying'."

Look around you. Young people don't believe in Harry Potter, but given the choice of understanding the prospect of everlasting life would seem boring to them over "good" magic. How many people believe in astrology? Not so much believe in it as are mislead by it.

The flood? Through a close examination of the Scripture and Bible chronology one can determine that it took Noah and his sons about 50 years to complete the ark. During that time Noah preached the coming of the flood and invited anyone who wanted to come with them and they laughed at them.

Is it, then, not surprising that you would do the same? See, none of this makes any sense to me. You would criticize God for sending people to burn forever in hell, which he doesn't, then hold it against him for preserving life in the face of the destruction of the Nephilim, as well as overlook the fact that he warned the people against the flood and was ignored while you would repeat the same if I should warn you against the coming destruction AND you would blame it all on a God you don't believe exists.

Maybe said..."Daystar, isn't a large portion of this blog describing just the opposite? In many cases, the almost twenty-five million God has been so far estimated to have killed are not the "destroyers" at all, but innocent. Those that hardly deserved to be massacred."

Matthew: "Notice, again, that he uses a translation that states "Jehovah God"; this is a mistranslation from the KJV, and so should not be regarded (by Daystar, and so many others) as "divine"."

I have already corrected you elsewhere on the point of Jehovah being a mistranslation, but tell me what basis is there for that being the case, and while you are at it also tell me what you think the word "divine" means, if you would be so kind, please?

Daystar, you may argue all you like. You may even believe you are clever. It doesn't matter how you slice it, the god portrayed by the bible (heh, I initially mistyped it as "bile") is insanely cruel, and stupid as well.

"Mankind not behaving well, and then I gotta kill 'em? Geeze, who woulda seen that coming?" Says god, wiping a sizable river of drool away from his chin. "Not that I wanna kill 'em, and then get drunk with their blood. I's just that a god's gotta do what a god's gotta do" *hiccup*

"The issue isn't about God or the Bible and it isn't about how clever I am. It isn't about how cruel God is or how many people he killed, whether you think God is fictional or real."

Well, no wonder I was confused. That cleared it all up, thanks. Here I was thinking that Steve was pointing out how insane god is portrayed in the bible, but actually it is lesbians, gays, abortions and all us upitty atheists. Makes perfect sense.

Can somebody explain Daystar to me? All I understand is so far is that he seems to be a complete nutjob.

"How many people believe in astrology? Not so much believe in it as are mislead(sic) by it."

Wow isn't that rich coming from a Christian apologist? You are a sun-worshipper yourself. Christmas on 25 Dec (winter solistice), the 12 apostles (12 astrological signs), Easter (spring equinox), etc are replete with astrological symbolism. Oops, looks like you have just shot yourself in the foot buddy.

Well TC, you've pegged Davey just fine but for details - he is a Jehovah's Witness who denies being one, he doesn't believe the bible is true except for the parts that are & they keep changing depending on his arguement of the moment.

I'm the nutjob? How much time do you spend responding to people who believe in what you think is a primitive superstition? And I'm the nutjob? If there isn't some practical, like I said, social and political reasoning behind it then I'm not the only nutjob here.

Think of it this way . . . If Jehovah God had never been worshipped; no one had ever fought a war in his name, no one had ever rightfully or wrongfully oppressed or killed anyone in his name; no science was ever hindered, no inquisition or crusade, and instead he was introduced through science as some higher intelligent being in a form other than human you wouldn't be here arguing with this nutjob, would you?

As it is, though, from your uninformed atheistic perspective, you might as well go over to the anti Lord Of The Rings blog and count how many people Sauron, the Dark Lord has killed? No? Why, because people don't believe in him or because he doesn't exist outside of fiction?

In the case of Laish, or Leshem, later known as Dan, from the DIU link you referenced to, the people may have seemed innocent to an uninformed atheist, but to God they were worthy of destruction do to their lewd sexual practices and sex religion.

Keep in mind that earlier the Danites suffered terribly due to their having not driven the pagan people completely out of the promised land. (Judges 1:34)

Dan's territory was excellent soil, but they were many on a small portion compared to the other tribes, and the fact that they didn't completely rid the land of the inhabitants caused them to fight with them, to be spiritually corrupted by the aforementioned lewd sex religion (Judges 10:6-7, 11-13), and to eventually have to take over Laish for more land.

So, you have the creator of life, the universe and everything, forming a nation of laws in order to produce a Messiah from this people, a Messiah who will save all mankind from it's own destruction . . . and this creator decides that these people of Laish should be destroyed.

The case of the Egyptian firstborn is a similar one. All of the killing and wars with other nations of that period which was sanctified by God was of a similar nature.

To God those people were as good as dead. They were deserved to die. The firstborn of Egypt would never bring anything but destruction.

Comment on your comment about the excellent soil called Dan's territory: we are talking about that barren piece of desert land in the Middle East right? Where no natural resources are to be found, despite the fact that all the land around it is rich with oil underground? (rolling eyes to the imaginary heaven)

You also danced around the point I made about your god's intellectual blunder. You didn't even attempt to make an excuse for it, which is ironic since you tried to take stabs at other things that were irrelevant. I don't care how much life your murderous god preserved in what city at what time, it does NOT justify why he had to destroy 99% of the world's population, regardless of how -wicked- they were. I don't care if he's sovereign or a creator or whatever you want to call him, he sure as hell isn't perfect. I stand by what I said before: a perfect and benevolent god would have found another way. I'm not perfect, but if I was this god, I know I'd have done things differently.

This is just for the sake of argument. I don't blame anything on a god I know doesn't exist. I blame it on the religious zealots who tortured, stoned, and killed many people labeled as heretics for crimes as simple as questioning the verses within the bible.

Oh, and a moral question for you. If this oh-so-loving god came down to earth today and requested that you kill your child, would you do it? Simple question, simple answer. You don't have to tap-dance around it.

You're the only on one this forum that seems to be talking any sense, but I'm not quite clear about some of your points...

"Upon discovering the reason behind the killing the informed Bible student comes to the conclusion that it is unfortunate that God had to kill all of these people, but at the same time is grateful that he will destroy those that destroy."

- Which part of the bible did you discover the answer from !?

- Why do you think it's "unfortunate" that god will destroy those who destroy ? Surely it's great news and very comforting ?

"To God those people were as good as dead. They were deserved to die. The firstborn of Egypt would never bring anything but destruction."

God knew they would only bring destruction? So instead of this all powerful being helping them to change he just kills them? He killed them before they were able to make their own choices, therefore he took away their free will, their freedom to choose god or sin. How is this justified? Even to the "creator", since he wants people to follow him by their own choice, and be responsible for their own damnation if they choose not too.

If god being omnipotent and omniprescent saw into the future and knew they were going bring destruction, then they never really had a choice after all, and were killed for what god created them to do.

Could you imagine being killed as a baby, and ending up in hell for something you didn't even do yet, or even have the choice to decide not to? All because it had already been layed out that you were going to. Some god there.

We are talking about a very fertile and well watered city North of Palestine. Positioned on a low plain at the base of the Anti-Lebanon mountains, not far from Mount Hermon. Two springs join there and form the Nahr el-Leddan, the most abundant water of the streams that combine a few miles away from the Jordan.

In response to SAB on Rev. 21:8, I say the lake of fire is symbolic for everlasting destruction. Death, which can not literally be hurled or damaged by fire is thrown into it, and Satan, a spirit creature also can't be harmed by literal fire. (Revelation 20:10, 14 / Exodus 3:2 / Judges 13:20)

The Bible itself explains what the Lake of fire symbolically represents. The second death. In verse 8 itself as well as 20:14. Death and haides are also thrown into the lake of fire, which symbolizes their eternal destruction.

The second death is an eternal destruction from which there is no possibility of resurrection.

The Greek basanistes, translated as tortured or tormented is used in some translations as "jailers." The tormentors are the jailers. See Matthew 18:34 (RSV). The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia observed: "Probably the imprisonment itself was regarded as 'torment' (as it doubtless was), and the 'tormentors' need mean nothing more than jailers." (Edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. V, p. 2999)

I am guessing that when you ask me why God would have destroyed 99% of people its a reference to the flood?

God brought the flood because the Nephilim, which were the offspring of spirit creatures who took human form as men, mating with women. The word nephilim means "fellers" Those who cause to fall. They were a very destructive and nasty lot. They were influencing the people of earth to that effect. So here were these hybrids and violence that God wasn't going to allow. I suspect that if God had allowed it to continue the destruction would have been more destructive that the flood and we wouldn't be here talking about it.

Second guessing a perfect God by imperfect people is something I can never understand.

The Bible is full of examples of God destroying those who destroy, from Genesis to Revelation. One example is Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:20; 19:13, 24-25 / 2 Peter 2:6).

It isn't unfortunate that God must and will destroy those who destroy, it is unfortunate that he has to. It isn't, contrary to the average skeptic's belief, something which he enjoys.

Ezekiel 33:11 - Say to them, '"As I am alive," is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, "I take delight, not in the death of the wicked one, but in that someone wicked turns back from his way and actually keeps living. Turn back, turn back from your bad ways, for why is it that you should die, O house of Israel?"'

First of all I'm not a believer in an omnipotent or omnipresent God as such. I don't believe the Bible teaches he is, as such. God can do whatever he wants to and can be anywhere he wants to, but not do anything (he can't lie, for example) nor is he everywhere all at once, for his position is fixed in heaven. It would be pointless to say that God was with man on earth, in the case of "Solomon's Temple" or in Revelation once sin is removed, if God were everywhere.

It wasn't Jehovah's fault the Egyptian people raised their children in a way which was destructive to his purpose. To suggest that he should change them isn't conducive to their own will. It is silly to suggest your solution of God changing them instead of killing them because the Egyptians wouldn't even let his people go when he asked them, in a most convincing way, to do so.

Daystar sez-"I'm the nutjob? How much time do you spend responding to people who believe in what you think is a primitive superstition? And I'm the nutjob? If there isn't some practical, like I said, social and political reasoning behind it then I'm not the only nutjob here."

I actually don't spend a lot of time responding to nutjobs like yourself. I am grateful to Steve & Co. for doing so. Why? First, because it is a bit amusing to see people like yourself justifying your religion, usually by using the bible. Some of the circular reasoning provides acrobatics that shames Cirque du Soleil Secondly, nutjobs like yourself use this primitive superstition to enact laws. When the Lord of The Rings fans start trying to enact laws based on the most holy Tolkien, you may be sure we will be there as well.

Daystar - The issue isn't about God or the Bible and it isn't about how clever I am. It isn't about how cruel God is or how many people he killed, whether you think God is fictional or real.

TaoCat - Well, no wonder I was confused. That cleared it all up, thanks. Here I was thinking that Steve was pointing out how insane god is portrayed in the bible, but actually it is lesbians, gays, abortions and all us upitty atheists. Makes perfect sense.

Can somebody explain Daystar to me? All I understand is so far is that he seems to be a complete nutjob.

TaoCat Later - I actually don't spend a lot of time responding to nutjobs like yourself. I am grateful to Steve & Co. for doing so. Why? First, because it is a bit amusing to see people like yourself justifying your religion, usually by using the bible. Some of the circular reasoning provides acrobatics that shames Cirque du Soleil Secondly, nutjobs like yourself use this primitive superstition to enact laws. When the Lord of The Rings fans start trying to enact laws based on the most holy Tolkien, you may be sure we will be there as well.

Daystar - When Jesus was tempted by Satan, who was going to give him all of the kingdoms of men for all time, because he had authority over them, Jesus refused. When the Jews wanted to make him king . . . he ran away from them. He told his followers to be no part of the world.

I am no part of the world. I don't vote, I don't voice my opinion through any legislation on any issue.

5. God will soon viciously slaughter everyone who disagrees with Daystar and the Jehovah's Witnesses. And Daystar's looking forward to it. He'll get to wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. (Wicked people are the ones who don't believe that Jesus returned in 1914.)

If you want to argue with him, that's fine. Me, I'm going to ignore him. Some beliefs are just too nasty and absurd to bother with.

That isn't a very accurate description of my or the JW's beliefs. I don't have much respect for organized religion but I do have enough so as not to take it upon myself to speak for them in that regard and I would appreciate if you would do the same.

I think it is a shame that you would ignore me or anyone on a discussion forum such as this, but if that is what you want to do I can respect that. As for the others lets not argue, lets discuss as rationally as is possible our differences.

Though I think your description of my beliefs was meant to be more satirical than factual, you did get the first one right without the satire.

1. Through a careful examination of Bible chronology it can be demonstrated that Adam was created in 4026 B.C.E.

2. Was wrong. Neither the JWs or myself believe that Jesus returned in 1914. We don't believe in a 2nd coming at all. The language of the Bible doesn't support it. It doesn't make sense from a theocratic perspective either. See Will Jesus' 2nd Coming Be Visible To All?

3 (A). Jesus existed in heaven before he came to earth, in spirit form. As an angel. Since the term "the archangel" implies one angel above all others, and there is only one other person besides the creator who the angels are subjected to, that being Jesus, who the Bible says will speak with the voice of an archangel, I think it safe to say, that before Jesus came to earth as a human he was Michael, don't you? (John 3:13; 6:38, 62 / Colossians 1:16 / 1 Peter 3:22 / 1 Thessalonians 4:16)

3 (B). I don't believe that heaven only has space for 144,000. I believe it has space for billions and billions of spirit creatures. What I do believe is that the Bible says that the meek shall inherit, not heaven, but the earth. So only 144,000 need to go to heaven to judge with Jesus. Jehovah and even Jesus Christ don't know what it is like to have lived under under sin. How could they fairly judge those who do know what that is like? By selecting a small portion that have lived under sin and to the best of their ability rose above it. (Revelation chapters 7 and 14)

Heaven wasn't created for man in mind. The earth was. Heaven isn't some mystical utopia for the self righteous religious hypocrites.

4. I could probably accept 4 in the satirical spirit in which it was given. Satan is in control of the world, including you, Paul, and I and all of those you mentioned. (Ephesians 6:11-12 / 1 Corinthians 10:20 / 2 Corinthians 11:14-15; 12:7 / John 12:31; 14:30)

5. I reject completely. You go too far. It is my wish that you and I and all of the people who have ever lived would be saved from destruction, even monster like Hitler and Stalin, but you and I are not in a place to judge such things. Though I would have those, such as yourself who disagree with me saved, you would reject it.

No problem, your implication was understandable under the circumstance.

I disagree with your assessment on the firstborn of Egypt. I don't think it would have taken an omnipotent God to foresee the upbringing of children without the regulation of Jehovah as being most likely being more of a hindrance than a suitable candidate for change.

But lets consider your proposition, which I in turn apologize for having assumed too much of. Lets say God decided that rather than kill them he would help them change.

No, Daystar, I wasn't being satirical. I was just stating your beliefs.

1. You say that "through a careful examination of Bible chronology it can be demonstrated that Adam was created in 4026 B.C.E," Great! Could you do one those "careful demonstrations" for us?

2. You say that Jesus didn't return in 1914. Really? Not even his invisible presence? Nothing special about that date at all, according to you and the JWs? And there never was? Is that what you're saying?

3a. You say, "I think it safe to say, that before Jesus came to earth as a human he was Michael, don't you?" No, it's not safe, Daystar; it's batshit crazy.

Elvis had a voice of an angel. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 says that Jesus will have the voice of an angel. Therefore I think it safe to say that Elvis is Jesus, don't you?

3b. So heaven may have lots of space, but you agree that only 144,000 will be going there. Will they all be JWs?

4. You agree that the whole world is under Satan's control. Does that include you and the Watchtower? Is the Governing Body of the JWs under Satan's control?

5. You say you reject this one completely. So God will not soon destroy 6.8 billion people (all except you and the JWs) at Armageddon? You don't believe Armageddon is coming soon? You don't believe that virtually everyone (more than 99.9% of the human population) will be killed? And you don't believe that the killing will be rather messy and painful?

I think my original list was accurate enough, even if I did have two #3s.

You clearly don't talk sense, you talk nonsense and deny scientific facts. The point of the phrase, "scientific facts" is that they can be verified to be true, make predictions and are falsifiable.

That's what makes them "scientific" and "facts" unlike mere "beliefs" like, (say) your belief that the world is approx 6,000 years old. You are - of course - welcome to any beliefs you so choose, but...

Anyway, fair play to you for coming on here. Even atheists know the maxim of "hate the sin, love the sinner" is a good one. While I ridicule your absurd beliefs, I DO respect you the person.

Now imagine if some atheist went onto a deist site and uttered that level of profanity. *poof* Atheist gone. But here Daystar gets to stay and provide some mental gymnastics for our edification and amusement.

Steve Wells,I just finished read the Kindle version of your book. I am a bedraggled refugee from the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church now a proud Atheist. On the Internet I have been part of the stuggle by Atheists to try to get some sense into those brainwashed "believers"

How anyone after reading the "Holy" Bible properly with an open mind can still believe in a "Creator/God" is beyond me.

Congratulations on your excellent book. The only problem is that closed minded Christians will never read it and not know the real truth about the worst book of fiction ever written, the "Holy" Bible.

Steve Wells, I think you overlooked a very important verse in chapter 23, which is 23:19! You just wrote a short commentary on that verse in SAB about God repenting or lying, but didn't address the significance of the first 3 sentences of that verse! The verse clearly states that God is neither a man nor son of a man ( "son of a man" is mentioned more than 83 times in the NT, and even though the statement is clearly saying he is NOT a son of God, some Christians apologists interpret "son of a man" as son of God since Jesus has no father so by default it must have meant "son of God"!!!); a knockout blow to Christology! It simply killed two birds with one stone, refuted the two main beliefs systems of Christians on this planet ( who are confused and can't make up their mind; half of them saying he is God, other half saying he was just the son of God)! Don't you just love the 'beauty' of that verse? You can simply end a debate with any Christian trying to use the OT to prove Jesus was God or son of God with that verse; just like I did on many occasions when they try so desperately to put their own spin on some verses from the Old Testament to support those ridiculous beliefs systems! Every time I quote this verse, many of them just stop replying to me : )